What Can We Agree On Part 2 - Embryology

Even more controversial than geology, causing more arguments than the fossil record. Is there any evidence behind those evolutionist claims?

Once again, I will drop any pretence of being an evolutionist. I will present the evidence without any explanation of it. Each one of these things is either true or false independantly of what you use to explain them later.

1. A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.
2. There are some pouches in the neck of both.
3. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.
4. The anterior pouch in humans also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

You can see that I have not attempted to explain any of these but have presented observable pieces of evidence.

No assumptions are required at all to decide whether the above is true or not. Please, do not tell me that evolution cannot explain these things as I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell me that Haeckel has been discredited, I already know. Have I used Haeckel here? No. I have only presented four pieces of evidence that are observable and empirical.

Even more controversial than geology, causing more arguments than the fossil record. Is there any evidence behind those evolutionist claims?

Once again, I will drop any pretence of being an evolutionist. I will present the evidence without any explanation of it. Each one of these things is either true or false independantly of what you use to explain them later.

1. A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.2. There are some pouches in the neck of both.3. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.4. The anterior pouch in humans also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

You can see that I have not attempted to explain any of these but have presented observable pieces of evidence.

No assumptions are required at all to decide whether the above is true or not. Please, do not tell me that evolution cannot explain these things as I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell me that Haeckel has been discredited, I already know. Have I used Haeckel here? No. I have only presented four pieces of evidence that are observable and empirical.

Yet these are allong the same line as Haeckel. Wasn't Haeckle convicted of fraud? Why even bring this up when the courts of law have already made a decision on this?

Even more controversial than geology, causing more arguments than the fossil record.Ã‚Â Is there any evidence behind those evolutionist claims?

Once again, I will drop any pretence of being an evolutionist.Ã‚Â I will present the evidence without any explanation of it.Ã‚Â Each one of these things is either true or false independantly of what you use to explain them later.

1. A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.2. There are some pouches in the neck of both.3. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.4. The anterior pouch in humans also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

You can see that I have not attempted to explain any of these but have presented observable pieces of evidence.

No assumptions are required at all to decide whether the above is true or not.Ã‚Â Please, do not tell me that evolution cannot explain these things as I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care.Ã‚Â DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell me that Haeckel has been discredited, I already know.Ã‚Â Have I used Haeckel here? No.Ã‚Â I have only presented four pieces of evidence that are observable and empirical.

What you claim to be 'observable', in fact is not... You also offer no evidence for your claims of such observation (the same as in the geology thread).

You are being dishonest with your points.

Firstly point 1 ''A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.'' is a blatent lie since fish and human embryo's can be distinguished at four weeks...Firstly by this stage the human embryo shows signs of ears, while fish don't have protuding ears.

Yet these are allong the same line as Haeckel. Wasn't Haeckle convicted of fraud? Why even bring this up when the courts of law have already made a decision on this?

Yes you can read up on Haeckel's fraud on the net. PhilC's claims of 'observation' i exposed above as a lie, he probably got this lie from Haeckel.

I don't think PhilC is ignorant at this stage, i think he just wants to find some 'common ground' with creationists. However he needs to realise he can't start off his threads with evolutionist lies or evolutionist assumption. So there is clear dishonesty in his threads since he puts forwards things apparently 'observable' when in fact they arn't.

Yes you can read up on Haeckel's fraud on the net. PhilC's claims of 'observation' i exposed above as a lie, he probably got this lie from Haeckel.

I don't think PhilC is ignorant at this stage, i think he just wants to find some 'common ground' with creationists. However he needs to realise he can't start off his threads with evolutionist lies or evolutionist assumption. So there is clear dishonesty in his threads since he puts forwards things apparently 'observable' when in fact they arn't.

From Bionalogy.com, a site for nurses and midwives:

During the 4th and 5th weeks of development, the human embryo closely resembles a fish embryo. In particular, the series of parallel ridges seen on the side of the future head and neck region (in relation to the pharynx) resemble the developing gill arches of the fish embryo. This resemblance prompted the earlier embryologists to refer to the corresponding arches in the human embryo as branchial arches, where Ã¢â‚¬Ëœbranchium' means Ã¢â‚¬Ëœgill'. (Not to be confused with Ã¢â‚¬Ëœbrachium', which means Ã¢â‚¬Ëœarm'!) However, at no stage do perforations occur between the arches of the human embryo - as they do in fish embryos to form the gill-slits - and it has now become more acceptable to refer to these structures as pharyngeal arches, rather than branchial arches. Be prepared to hear both terms - clinicians especially will tend to refer to branchial arches, branchial cysts, etc - but try to use the term Ã¢â‚¬Ëœpharyngeal arches' when you can.

Why fish? Why not monkey's since "we are related closer", or what about some other animal that is related closer...

Seems the evos are grasping at straws, looking at something that can be similar and then saying it's proof of evolution...

Realistically what does it matter that there are folds in the embryo that go on to develop different parts of the body... It doesn't prove anything, except that there are folds in the embryo that go on to develop different parts of the body....

Having something that looks similar can be totally different..

Some evos are hypocritical with this, as with their species classification, (sorry to tangent), mentioned in the other thread. Some evos count the tiniest change as cause to a new species classification.. Yet when it suits them if something is similar it is said to be the same....

This is not an attempt to trap people. If you don't agree with a point, then you don't have to. This is not about me telling you what you have to accept, this is finding out what you will accept.

For the sake of Cass I will drop point 1.

Why fish? Why not monkey's since "we are related closer", or what about some other animal that is related closer...Ã‚Â Ã‚Â

Seems the evos are grasping at straws, looking at something that can be similar and then saying it's proof of evolution...

Realistically what does it matter that there are folds in the embryo that go on to develop different parts of the body... It doesn't prove anything, except that there are folds in the embryo that go on to develop different parts of the body....

Having something that looks similar can be totally different..

Some evos are hypocritical with this, as with their species classification, (sorry to tangent), mentioned in the other thread. Some evos count the tiniest change as cause to a new species classification.. Yet when it suits them if something is similar it is said to be the same

I have said that creationists keep on saying that there is no evidence when evolutionsists keep saying just look at the evidence.

In this thread I have dropped the theory. I am just looking at the evidence, but creationists keep on saying "but this doesn't explain anything" or "but that doesn't prove anything"

I'm not trying to! I am trying to find evidence that we can discuss. Please, drop your theories, and look at the modified points:

1. There are some pouches in the neck of fish monkey and human embryo's.2. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.3. The anterior pouch in humans and in monkeys also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

There I have removed a contentious point and included monkeys for Gilbo's sake.

At least we are now debating the physical evidence, not the theories. I have to say that I wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t lying, though. I may have been enthusiastic about that point but for particular reasons that are to do with Darwin and Von Baer.

Let us now discuss the contentious issue:

Creationist website (biased against evolution): True enough, at an early stage of development the human fetus does have certain folds or creases which resemble these found in a fish embryo.

Evoutionist website (biased towards evolution): During the 4th and 5th weeks of development, the human embryo closely resembles a fish embryo. In particular, the series of parallel ridges seen on the side of the future head and neck region (in relation to the pharynx) resemble the developing gill arches of the fish embryo.

Both sides agree that they look the same! IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll freely admit indistinguishable may be too far, but that doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t make me a liar. Especially when I present this as something to be discussed, not something to take on authority.

The thing neither of these discusses is the fact that internal examination of these pouches in the early weeks shows the same level of similarity. The blood vessels and nerves of the pharyngeal pouches in human, fish (and monkey!) embryoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s are all the same.

In later development, the fish blood vessels and nerves stay like that, in humans and monkeys they change.

Let me reword the list of points:

1. Fish human and monkey embryoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s look very similar to each other in the first weeks of life.2. There are some pouches in the neck of fish monkey and human embryo's.3. These pouches, in the early part of the embryoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s life have the same nerve and blood supply.4. Later in the development of the embryoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s, the fish pouches retain this supply, but the monkey and human embryoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. 5. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.6. The anterior pouch in humans and in monkeys also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

I realised earlier today have deceived you, but not on purpose (it really was unintentional). I wrote something in this thread which I do not have empirical evidence for. This was not intentional but sometimes things just slip in. As I am trying to do this in an open and honest way it is right that I inform you, but with my playful side, I thought it might be fun for someone to spot.

The theory of evolution has been used in this thread to make a prediction! I have no evidence but the theory that what I have claimed is true. Top marks to any creationist that spots the point. Ã‚Â½ marks to any evolutionist.

PM me your answers, and I will reveal all on Monday.

You may wish to halt discussion on this until this has been revealed, as your comments may be tarnished. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s your choice, I will answer any point in my usual way.

I have put 'monkey' in when I have no evidence of what a monkey embryo looks like. I used the theory of evolution to predict its position, and will continue to make predictions purely on the position of monkey (the human and fish part I will stick to empiricism). Anyone can then find the details and show that I am wrong. This would be a chance for a creationist to show evolution to be wrong.

"Some evos are hypocritical with this, as with their species classification, (sorry to tangent), mentioned in the other thread. Some evos count the tiniest change as cause to a new species classification.. Yet when it suits them if something is similar it is said to be the same.... "

Most people let their worldview determine the evidence rather than, the evidence determining their worldview....

You are right, and I have personally said that "looking alike" is not scientific, but at the moment we are not talking about science we are talking about observation.

Talking amongst ourselves, obviously, dogs all look like each other.

The same is true of early embryo's. We can get onto the subject of whether there is a scientific basis to say they are empirically the same once creationists say they agree with these points (or disagree, when I will change them if necessary).

Even more controversial than geology, causing more arguments than the fossil record. Is there any evidence behind those evolutionist claims?

Once again, I will drop any pretence of being an evolutionist. I will present the evidence without any explanation of it. Each one of these things is either true or false independantly of what you use to explain them later.

1. A human embryo at four weeks old is indistinguishable from a fish embryo.2. There are some pouches in the neck of both.3. The anterior pouch in fish forms a piece of cartilage which is known as meckels cartilage which forms part of the jaw.4. The anterior pouch in humans also forms a piece of cartilage which eventually disappears apart from two ossified pieces in the ear which are the incus and malleus.

You can see that I have not attempted to explain any of these but have presented observable pieces of evidence.

No assumptions are required at all to decide whether the above is true or not. Please, do not tell me that evolution cannot explain these things as I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t care. DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t tell me that Haeckel has been discredited, I already know. Have I used Haeckel here? No. I have only presented four pieces of evidence that are observable and empirical.

If the embryo goes through all this in 9 months, it proves that evolution does not take millions of years. And therefore the excuse used as to the reason evolution cannot be observed because it take millions of years does not hold water. And therefore neither does this illustration.

Also, what needs to be answered is:

1) Why do the supposed organs of our past evolution disappear?2) Why don't they hang around as vestigial organs?3) And why did all the abilities go away when it's pretty clear that some sticking around would have been helpful for certain cultures and populations?

Thanks for replying, Ikester. Your points may or may not have validity and your questions may need answering, but that is not what this thread is about.

Are the points I've raised empirically verifiable or not? No theory, no presupposition. Does the anterior pharyngeal pouch of the human embryo first resemble the anterior pouch in fishes (including the circulation and nerve system) and then does it form a piece of cartilage along the jaw which disappears apart from two ossified pieces in our ear?

This is something that is empirically observed. The cartilage was discovered in 1820, for example.

Thanks for replying, Ikester. Your points may or may not have validity and your questions may need answering, but that is not what this thread is about.

Are the points I've raised empirically verifiable or not? No theory, no presupposition. Does the anterior pharyngeal pouch of the human embryo first resemble the anterior pouch in fishes (including the circulation and nerve system) and then does it form a piece of cartilage along the jaw which disappears apart from two ossified pieces in our ear?

This is something that is empirically observed. The cartilage was discovered in 1820, for example.

I think proving evolution via embryology is a waste of time... personally

If you go back far enough, of course a human embryo will look the same as a fish embryo... At Day 0 all vertibra are identical, (egg with a sperm in it.. )...

The embryo hasn't had the time to develop the distinguishing features it has coded in its DNA that separate it from other kinds.. As such, I think its wasted effort

Thanks for replying, Ikester. Your points may or may not have validity and your questions may need answering, but that is not what this thread is about.

Are the points I've raised empirically verifiable or not? No theory, no presupposition. Does the anterior pharyngeal pouch of the human embryo first resemble the anterior pouch in fishes (including the circulation and nerve system) and then does it form a piece of cartilage along the jaw which disappears apart from two ossified pieces in our ear?

This is something that is empirically observed. The cartilage was discovered in 1820, for example.

But claiming it proves or supports evolution is more of an assumption back up by words. So no it's not empirical as you claim. And Haeckel would not have had to fraud those pics if it were so convincing. But then again truth is relative so anything can be enpirical as long as it supports evolution only.